MysterMenace Wrote:If you assume the conclusion is false you will have a very biased interpretation of any evidence presented to support the conclusion.

I don't assume the conclusion is false. You just assume I do. Ironically.

Quote:I note that in discussing what constitutes evidence you are extremely agitated by the hypothetical example.

I'm not agitated at all. That's an assumption you have made. Once again, ironically.

Quote:Your credibility for rational analysis really takes a hit with that kind of irrelevant bias.

I'm not biased you are just making assumptions that lead to you thinking that I am. Ironically.

I like it when a topic gets killed and mashed into pulp continually beaten liek a dead horse. It's so intellectually stimulating!

Quote:It is if god told them to write that.

And the evidence that God told them to write it is?

Quote:You may be confusing evidence with proof. You may be confusing strong evidence with weak evidence. In any case, if the Bible is true then it is very good evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists. Much of the Bible is corroborated by geology, geography, archeology, literature, etc.
Geology, geography, archeology, literature, are solid areas of study.

If Archaeology says that the Kingdom of David existed, how is that evidence that God exists? Archaeology also shows that the Kingdom of the Maya existed. Does that mean that their gods were real? Where does geology corroborate the Bible? I can't point to several geologic events that dispute certainn notable tales in the Bible. For instance, there is NO geologic evidence that a global flood ever occurred. For instance, the destruction of Jericho was not caused by Israelites blowing their trumpets. Jericho sits on the Dead Sea fault, which is a very active strike slip fault much like the San Andreas fault. And there is a lot of geologic and archaeological evidence that Jericho was destroyed several times by large earthquakes, and likely will again sometime in the future.

Quote:Explain why that is not evidence, without assuming beforehand that Santa Claus does not exist.

Seriously?

(October 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't assume the conclusion is false. You just assume I do. Ironically.
I'm not agitated at all. That's an assumption you have made. Once again, ironically.
I'm not biased you are just making assumptions that lead to you thinking that I am. Ironically.

No I didn't, you did.

---

(October 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm)orogenicman Wrote: And the evidence that God told them to write it is?

It says so.

(October 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm)orogenicman Wrote: If Archaeology says that the Kingdom of David existed, how is that evidence that God exists? Archaeology also shows that the Kingdom of the Maya existed. Does that mean that their gods were real? Where does geology corroborate the Bible? I can't point to several geologic events that dispute certainn notable tales in the Bible. For instance, there is NO geologic evidence that a global flood ever occurred. For instance, the destruction of Jericho was not caused by Israelites blowing their trumpets. Jericho sits on the Dead Sea fault, which is a very active strike slip fault much like the San Andreas fault. And there is a lot of geologic and archaeological evidence that Jericho was destroyed several times by large earthquakes, and likely will again sometime in the future.

It seems like you are saying that since some things are not evidence that nothing is evidence.

How do bone-shaped rocks provide evidence of dinosaurs?

Can you give a definition of evidence that supports your stance on what constitutes evidence?

(September 16, 2010 at 2:42 am)Entropist Wrote:

(September 16, 2010 at 2:29 am)AngelThMan Wrote: I don't know about you guys, but I can't ignore things like these. I haven't experienced anything as severe as the examples above, but I've been in situations in which I have felt that my prayers have made a difference. And that's how I know it was God.

2,752 people and their families beg to differ. And that's just for starters.

For every person you can give a "miraculous" result from prayer, I can give you 25 who aren't so fortunate-- including those who are Christian. I work in the ER and gawd ain't got nuthin' to do with it. I suppose you could cop out and say "well, THOSE people weren't true Christians," eh?

Hey y'all, I'm back. Been swamped. But I never forgot about my peeps here and the pile of unanswered replies I have on this thread. I'll start with Entropist...

As I said on another post, Good things can happen to unbelievers, and bad things can happen to Christians. This does not disprove the existence of God, or the power of prayer.

You pointed to the 9/11 disaster to demonstrate that prayer doesn't work, since there must've been many Christians among those who died. But you're failing to acknowledge that while many people died, many others also got away. And no, I don't believe everyone that got out did so because they prayed. But God answered those who did pray. And others, including non-believers, got out because their time on this earth wasn't up.

I can tell you that some 12 members from one church in New Jersey who were supposed to be at the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11 never made it for one reason or another. Some were out sick, others didn't make it because of car trouble, etc. God has many ways of saving and protecting his people.

So here's how it breaks down:

Thousands of believers got out of the WTC because they prayed.

Others were protected by God, because he didn't allow them to even get to the towers that morning.

Of the believers that died, some, as you put it, may have not been true Christians.

Others may have been true Christians, but prayed without faith. Even if a person is a good Christian, praying without faith will yield no results.

And of course there's the many believers who didn't take time to pray as they were too horrified.

I'm assuming that some atheists and unbelievers got out safely as well, but that's because their time on this earth wasn't up. The algorithm in God's work is very complex, and he sometimes uses unbelievers for his own reasons and purposes.

Being a Christian does not put you in some sort of untouchable club. It's having true faith that will keep you protected. This is God's promise. However, if God feels that your time on this earth is up, then your time on this earth is up.

I can't help but notice that your examples of prayer is indestinguishable from random coincidence. How can you profess a power of prayer that doesn't do anything that wouldn't happen anyway?

Victor J Stenger, in my opinion answered this question rather nicely, when he wrote

Quote:If it looks like God does not exist, quacks like God does not exist, then there is a good chance he does not.... Proof is not required to believe. But some sign, some evidence is needed. None exists.... Find some inkling of evidence. There is none.

(December 11, 2010 at 1:35 am)AngelThMan Wrote: As I said on another post, Good things can happen to unbelievers, and bad things can happen to Christians. This does not disprove the existence of God, or the power of prayer.

It shows that it is of no consequence.

Quote:You pointed to the 9/11 disaster to demonstrate that prayer doesn't work, since there must've been many Christians among those who died. But you're failing to acknowledge that while many people died, many others also got away. And no, I don't believe everyone that got out did so because they prayed. But God answered those who did pray. And others, including non-believers, got out because their time on this earth wasn't up.

And you're saying that nobody who prayed died then? Either that or your God's answer was "See you after your flesh finishes burning"

But seriously, what do you have in support of prayer having any impact on the situation other than your bare assertion that it happened? Praying takes time, it's more likely that the wasted time squandered their window of opportunity rather than it increasing their survivability.

Quote:I can tell you that some 12 members from one church in New Jersey who were supposed to be at the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11 never made it for one reason or another. Some were out sick, others didn't make it because of car trouble, etc. God has many ways of saving and protecting his people.

So here's how it breaks down:

Thousands of people got out of the WTC because they prayed.

Bare assertion fallacy.

They got out because they walked/ran/climbed out of the building.

Quote:Others were protected by God, because he didn't allow them to even get to the towers that morning.

Bare assertion fallacy.

They didn't go for sickness and laziness primarily, the number of people absent from the building was less than on an average day.

Quote:Of the believers that died, some, as you put it, may have not been true Christians.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Not jut Christians survived either, and anyone who is not a Christian is certainly not a "true Christian".

Quote:Others may have been true Christians, but prayed without faith. Even if a person is a good Christian, praying without faith will yield no results.

Some of them may have been eating chocolate at the time and the spirit of meat-pies was angry at this fact and smited them.

Did you notice that both of our arguments are equally supported? I love refutation by parallel. It' so easy when the opposition is pulling arguments out of their asses.

Quote:And of course there's the many believers who didn't take time to pray as they were too horrified.

And there were many who had been eating meat pies that day and were saved by the spirit of meat-pies.

But seriously, Your god created a universe with the full knowledge that this situation would happen, then created people who would be in this situation and would be too terrified to do the required to save them. Your god is less cool than Boy George.

Quote:I'm assuming that some atheists and unbelievers got out safely as well, but that's because their time on this earth wasn't up. The algorithm of God's work is very complex, and he sometimes uses unbelievers for his own reasons and purposes.

I'm assuming that you're brainwashed and not just retarded. The algorithm of God's work is very complex and he sometimes creates people only to have them brainwashed to demonstrate to the rest of us what an argument looks like when it is created by someone who has absolutely no interest in checking it's validity.

See, once again my argument has precisely the same level of justification as yours, that being ZERO.

Quote:Being a Christian does not put you in some sort of untouchable club. It's having true faith that will keep you protected. This is God's promise. However, if God feels that your time on this earth is up, then your time on this earth is up.

True faith will protect you because it was promised until the cosmic wizard decides otherwise? that's nice.

The seatbelts and breaks in your car will protect you from crashes and that is my promise until at some point in time where I can change my mind without offering justification. I decided the time on your breaks was up, sorry!

As a newcomer, I sometimes wonder why, at least amongst thinking people, is the argument re the existence of god still with us. Sure, for those who are so petrified by the thought of personal extinction that they will accept ANY alternative, the existence of god has GOT to be true.

I would suggest that, however intelligent the individual, if he/she has this innate fear, then they would appear to have an infinite capacity to 'overlook' clear observation and logical argument.

Points to consider:

If god has a plan, then he must be dissatisfied with the status quo. A dissatisfied deity???!!!

When this plan is fulfilled, then god will have moved from god A (unfulfilled) to god B (fulfilled).

Question: How does a god evolve when, by definition god is the ultimate and highest creation?

A much simpler and not very original one: If god is all knowing and all seeing, then why did he bother creating two people and giving them 'free will' (or as we call it in the UK - Hobson's choice!), when he knew the outcome of his experiment.

Why make the poor buggers suffer from an innate weakness that god had programmed into them in the first place?

I'm not presenting the above as being new and groundbreaking arguments - but does fear really make believers ignore such obvious questions?

(December 11, 2010 at 7:22 am)hellfire Wrote:

---

As a newcomer, I sometimes wonder why, at least amongst thinking people, is the argument re the existence of god still with us. Sure, for those who are so petrified by the thought of personal extinction that they will accept ANY alternative, the existence of god has GOT to be true.

I would suggest that, however intelligent the individual, if he/she has this innate fear, then they would appear to have an infinite capacity to 'overlook' clear observation and logical argument.

Points to consider:

If god has a plan, then he must be dissatisfied with the status quo. A dissatisfied deity???!!!

When this plan is fulfilled, then god will have moved from god A (unfulfilled) to god B (fulfilled).

Question: How does a god evolve when, by definition god is the ultimate and highest creation?

A much simpler and not very original one: If god is all knowing and all seeing, then why did he bother creating two people and giving them 'free will' (or as we call it in the UK - Hobson's choice!), when he knew the outcome of his experiment.

Why make the poor buggers suffer from an innate weakness that god had programmed into them in the first place?

I'm not presenting the above as being new and groundbreaking arguments - but does fear really make believers ignore such obvious questions?

---